Apple's secretive AR and VR Headset plans altered by internal differences - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-06-19/apple-team-working-on-vr-and-ar-headset-and-ar-glasses <comment><USER2> I think Tim Cook and Apple made the correct decision.

I own an Oculus Quest, which is fairly light weight and totally self contained while my Brother owns a more capable Oculus device that is tethered to his gaming PC.

I use my Quest many times a day, often for just a few minutes at a time. It is so easy to get up from my desk, and jump into a ping pong game, enjoy a favorite part of Vader Immortal, randomly try a VR art piece, etc., etc.

I don't want to spend huge amounts of time on the quest, rather to just use it the way I would take a walk or a hike.

I love the Oculus Quest, and if Apple sells something better with good content, then I am all in.

<comment><USER3> I have the exact opposite opinion. The Quest is massively underpowered for the games I want to play. I want GTA VR (which is amazing except for the fact that it's not designed for VR). I want beautiful worlds to visit. I want more Half Life Alyx like experiences. I won't get those on a Quest with a mobile GPU anytime soon.

This is the major problem will all the mobile tech based VR. The content is not and will never be compelling to the audience that actually wants this tech.

<comment><USER4> This is classic Apple, they try to widen the audience that wants a tech by simplifying as much as possible, then finding a key value.

Prime example is the Apple Watch... who "wears" it now? Sports people...

<comment><USER5> > Prime example is the Apple Watch... who "wears" it now? Sports people...

Two years ago I was on vacation in Hawaii and took a whale watching / snorkel tour. I was the only person on the boat not wearing an Apple Watch. They are pretty much ubiquitous, like the iPhone, among an upper middle class demographic.

<comment><USER6> People on a snorkel tour _are_ sports people.

<comment><USER5> You are being snarky and not adding to the conversation. From the time the Apple Watch appeared, it's been denigrated, but I see them everywhere. I see regular complainers here on HN about the iPhone too, but it misses the total saturation in certain demographics. Apple is successful. Yes, we should continue to hold them to a high standard of ethics, but the haters need to realize that _consumers_ like their gear.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I have to side with Ive here. Apple is not a gaming company, and that's the only consumer motive I could see for a bulky headset that's tethered to a base station. Any other use would be pure novelty. Plus, the already-small market is being well-served by traditional VR headsets.

But a new wearable - a lifestyle product, slim and stylish enough to go anywhere and slide into a pocket if need be - is right up Apple's alley. On top of that, there's the incredibly obvious solution of pairing it to the user's iPhone for heavy-lifting, making use of those absurdly powerful mobile chips and gaining a new source of ecosystem synergy (or lock-in, depending on your perspective) in the process.

It's shocking to me that someone holding such high regard in Apple could be so out of touch.

<comment><USER8> Indeed. I'm surprised they're even trying the "stationary" product rather than just working directly towards a glasses version of the Watch.

Gurman's sources are good enough that I imagine he has the narrative right, but this sounds a little bit like the iPad / iPhone evolution in retrospect: As I understand the history, the iPad was actually under development _first_ , but it became obvious that the better initial market to target with the technology was smartphones. It wouldn't shock me if they belatedly have the same revelation again.

Maybe they have sold themselves on a kind of "meet in the middle" strategy, where major YoY improvements in AR-enhanced smartphones build a market for mobile-focused apps, while the HUD technology is ramped up and refined in an environment where you don't worry so much about power and portability.

But again, if I were Apple, I'd stick to mobile and wait until they are ready to leapfrog everyone else rather than try to build a market with awkward enthusiast tech.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Any company with a VR product that didn't react to the Oculus Quest would be making a mistake in my view. It is suboptimal in nearly every way, but the first headset in my view that is "good enough" in _every single way_ to be a blockbuster hit. The strategy for Apple of simply starting with the Quest and using its superior chips and overall hardware expertise to make it twice as fast and half the weight, while tying it into the iOS ecosystem should be extremely straight forward and basically make them the dominant VR player overnight. I imagine that for someone like Rockwell this isn't nearly as exciting as introducing a revolutionary tech breakthrough. But Apple has never been good at that. They are good at significantly raising the bar on what other people have already done badly.

One giant question I have in this space is, _where the hell is Google_? Are they really so burned by Google Glass that they are going to give up on an area that has a small but realistic chance of being a large part of the future of both consumer and business computing?

<comment><USER10> Google developed VR headset internally for years, but in typical Google fashion this seems to be half-assed effort that didn't go anywhere.

<comment><USER11> Stadia seems like such a good tie in for a VR headset. Not sure what they are thinking here.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I have heard quite different info from one man working at Apple supplier.

Apple for long tried to license display tech from Beijing university, a solid state microled chip with microlenses, but they never agreed on lump sump payment Apple wanted, despite it being "n-times the price" of their whole IP trading business.

So, it became a blocker, with relationship souring, and them resorting to "patenting around," poaching their engineers, and other nasties.

They tried to recreate the chip by themselves, but Beijing uni got a tip of it, and claimed that Apple is now "IP tainted" by what they saw under NDA, and them hiring their engineers.

And so, Apple went on developing "ordinary" transparent VR glasses instead.

A company called Kura is said now to reuse the same chip from Beijing university IC company in their own take on what Apple tried originally.

<comment><USER13> I'm not sure if I'd put a lot of stock in an Apple supplier knowing more than people who talk to internal engineers.

The idea of a combined VR/AR device sounds silly, and I think Ive is right: AR is where Apple should be focusing right now. There is something there for AR, and Apple has been laying the groundwork for AR for years with iOS and iPad OS. VR is very much stuck in a niche right now, and it seems like it will be for awhile.

<comment><USER12> What they say about N421 is pretty much is what they were saying a generic "transparent VR" or "lightweight AR" display would be, and what the technology would allow.

Think of Google Glass sans camera, and creepiness.

For anything else, there is simply no practical tech on this planet.

The lowest common denominator for "a real world usable AR" is well known: an emissive display, and a simple reflective projection system on some semitransparent medium/mirror dots/viewfinder-overlay-like prisms. No magic.

Pretty much everything else requires battery packs bigger than the glasses themselves, especially if you want daylight visibility.

> I'm not sure if I'd put a lot of stock in an Apple supplier knowing more > than people who talk to internal engineers

You will be surprised how much RnD stuff Apple outsources around in China.

Maybe they design their products in California, but they definitely engineer them here in Shenzhen.

I had hard time understanding why they were so skittish talking about their RnD centres in China, and even once denying their existence, when the whole city knew of them, and where they are.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> > He started building his team in late 2015, and what grew into a 1,000-strong > group of engineers

There were about 30 people in the original iPhone team. Something tells me larger teams find it hard to bring out innovations faster.

[https://www.theverge.com/2017/6/13/15782200/one-device- secre...](https://www.theverge.com/2017/6/13/15782200/one-device-secret- history-iphone-brian-merchant-book-excerpt)

<comment><USER15> Apple has been working on glasses at least since 2006 and perhaps earlier, far longer than this article indicates. Perhaps there's not continuity in these projects, but I suspect an R&D team or two has been working on this for over a decade. Whether or not you still believe it, Apple generally releases new new products when they're ready.

"Apple started working on an augmented reality headset at least as early as 2006, but put the idea on ice because it seemed a mere curiosity compared to the iPhone. The possibility of some sort of iGlass device was confirmed by Tony Fadell, the former iPod division head who is now the CEO of Nest Labs, during an interview for the oral history."

[https://www.fastcompany.com/3018060/apples-iglasses-are- real...](https://www.fastcompany.com/3018060/apples-iglasses-are-real-heres- why-you-might-never-see-them)

[https://www.computerworld.com/article/2474968/innovation-- ap...](https://www.computerworld.com/article/2474968/innovation--apple-was- developing-google-glass-like-prototypes-in-2006.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> If this is really what went down, it's highly disappointing, and potentially a market-losing choice akin to Microsoft chopping off the internal processing for the original Kinect (which left it far too under-powered to perform its core competencies). VR is already computationally-intensive; adding in the features necessary for AR UX and still trying to achieve a compelling experience on, essentially, mobile hardware is a fool's game (ask anyone who has been underwhelmed by Magic Leap and, again, Microsoft's offerings). From a performance perspective, perhaps the latency of using an wireless connection to a hub was concerning, but if it wasn't, that would have been the only way to achieve the kind of exceptional performance expected of a market-defining product launch of an Apple product. They really shot themselves in the foot on this one, for a guy who was about to jump ship anyway.

>For Ive, who left last year after almost three decades at the company, a more realistic experience was potentially problematic: He didn't want Apple promoting technology that would take people out of the real world.

And, on a philosophical level, that's not his decision to make. People build artificial worlds to suit or make up for their imperfections; that's just who we are as a species. I notice that those who are successful in the real-life social or corporate world are often horrified at the prospect of those not being central to the average person's experience, but the truth is that they're just as manufactured and distracting from "reality" as anything else. What is reality? I would say, "The base layers of Maslow's hierarchy," with everything above being artifice. Apple's contemporaries have shown that one doesn't need a false 3D overlay of their apartment to be swayed by the unreal; all you need is a willing mind and a text editor/reader. The problem is therefore orthogonal to the medium, and instead a matter of mental self- regulation of the near-limitless bounds of our imaginations. Let's get that figured out and stop trying to hold technology back.

</comment><comment><USER17> The article ended abruptly for me, which was confusing. (Bloomberg has this weird black magic used by news sites where articles blend into one another, leading to buggy behaviour.)

Here's the full text in archive: [https://archive.vn/Ue3Kp](https://archive.vn/Ue3Kp)

</comment><comment> nick-garfield Hmm that's a bit disappointing.. I feel like Ive and Cook could be wrong on this one. If desktop/mobile is an appropriate parallel, then it seems like they've decided to undercut their desktop machine to have the "ergonomics" of a mobile device while still not being mobile. If the VR headset is a stationary experience, then what's wrong with having a hub sitting around nearby?

<comment><USER18> I'd guess the AR headset is more interesting to Apple and probably not a stationary experience.

The goal is new UI extension of iOS similar to the watch. Eventually making it so you don't need to pull out your iPhone to interact with software (and the world) at all.

Probably at first will be notifications and such. No idea if there's any truth to this video, but it makes sense to me that Apple would focus on this as the next platform when the hardware becomes possible: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5J_6oMMG7Y](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5J_6oMMG7Y)

I think there's huge potential for a massive shift in capability if this is done right.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> The same post-Jobs Ive that caused the keyboard fiasco.

Some of the decisions made under him should be re-visited it seems, his product instincts beyond the design were flat out wrong.

<comment><USER20> Seriously, his reasoning for not needing better graphics in VR is out of touch with the purpose of VR. I now wish he left sooner so they would've focused on the best possible VR experience.

<comment><USER21> Both VR and AR require a lot of horsepower. I think VR might need less horsepower than AR.

I wonder if either of them will be as generally useful for a wide group of people day to day. I don't mean useful as in apps, I mean tolerated by eyes and brain.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Tethering the headset to an iPhone in your back pocket to offload the processing still makes the most sense to me. By the time this thing comes out, iPhone 13 or 14 will be pretty powerful, and most people already own one so the headset can be a lot cheaper and more lightweight.

Wireless tethering would be best, but a thin wire would be fine too, I'd probably prefer that to having a radio on my temple all the time.

I wonder what kind of display tech they are planning to use - laser projection or something else? I've been seeing tiny 1" OLED displays from China lately with 2560x2560 resolution on Alibaba, pretty cool. But of course they block your vision, unlike a projector.

<comment><USER23> The main problem with this approach is you decimate your phone's battery life anytime you use it as a remote processing unit for VR/AR, at least in the case of Samsung Gear VR that's what John Carmack learned. Users end up having to calculate whether they'd rather use the VR device or have more spare battery to get them through the day / until next charge.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> They could have captured both ends of the scale with two different devices: a powerful VR (for Mac/iPad) as well as a slimmer always-worn AR (maybe an iPhone companion like the Apple Watch).

They need VR credibility, especially after Valve dropping Mac support for SteamVR: [https://www.macrumors.com/2020/05/01/valve-drops-steamvr- mac...](https://www.macrumors.com/2020/05/01/valve-drops-steamvr-mac-support/)

<comment><USER25> >They need VR credibility

5 months until they bring in John Carmack?

[https://www.theverge.com/2019/11/13/20963899/john-carmack- st...](https://www.theverge.com/2019/11/13/20963899/john-carmack-stepping- down-cto-of-oculus-work-on-ai)

<comment><USER26> Are you suggesting that Carmack is sitting out his non-compete period and has already been poached?

If not - then I'm suggesting it. ;-)

Interesting theory.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Do you remember the Avegant Glyph VR headset from a few years ago? [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEmVyMm8opE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEmVyMm8opE)

Apple should perfect this idea instead, make it look like a normal set of highend overear headphones from the outside, and integrate a AR screen into the headband. This form factor is a winner for bulkier AR/VR headsets because people already wear headphones around their necks, people are used to seing other people wearing them like that. Meaning that one of the biggest barriers of adoption (where to store it, looks) is already solved.

A portable mobile cinema/AR viewer, and a Macbook/Ipad auxiliar screen through USB-C would be enough for a v1.

They'd have the capability to integrate powerful technology into such a package.

<comment><USER16> The Glyph was simply a display with speakers. I agree that the form factor visually pleasing, and they weren't uncomfortable to wear (save for extended periods, where it was easier than even with VR sets to develop dry eyes), but adding in everything necessary to make them a true AR/VR headset with inside- out 6DoF tracking, let alone the SoaC, would have drastically changed its shape and size.

<comment><USER27> It doesn't have to be a "true AR/VR headset" to become a hit if it can enhance activities like coding or media production on a mobile device by providing a screen alternative.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Bicycle for the mind. That should be the primary vision for the product.

They shouldn't be thinking about market segments or if it looks cool enough. Just make the next step in human-computer interaction. Make history.

"When we invented the personal computer, we created a new kind of bicycle... a new man-machine partnership... a new generation of entrepreneurs." — Steve Jobs, c. 1980

<comment><USER21> I think Steve Jobs would have sold it internally. And gotten people to work together by hook or by crook.

People don't realize Steve Jobs was the great integrator.

The ipod was a great achievement, but it was dwarfed by his ability getting the music people and the computer people together.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> If Apple had been first to market with a "wireless tether" VR headset that could have been interesting. A straight Quest competitor seems like an uninspired choice, especially as Apple has never been great at gaming, and the market seems less than Apple-sized.

AR glasses on the other hand they could bust wide open, but it all depends on the display technology. Literally nothing else matters unless the display is a huge breakthrough. I doubt that it will be good enough by 2023, unless Apple goes for a niche market first and expands wide a few generations later. But that doesn't really seem their style.

<comment><USER30> Apple doesn't care about first to market. They will take the time necessary to refine a huge breakthrough.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> It's interesting that Ive had hesitations about building a product that takes the user out of reality. I also have that hesitation about VR; that is, I don't like the fact that it takes up my entire field of vision, and I am hesitant to adopt a new screen technology when I don't feel like I have properly reckoned with the screens I already have.

I hope that Apple will have Screen Time on this device.

<comment><USER32> Ultimately we will have software modulation of all photons hitting your retina, in hardware packages that are unobtrusive. To not be aiming there seems to be swimming against the tide.

<comment><USER31> It certainly makes sense for Apple to aim there. But I'm not sure that I want to go there. Perhaps I will have to in order to keep up.

<comment><USER32> Yup, I'm afraid so.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> I agree that having this tethered to a stationary hub inhibits the scope of this being a device which can be worn anywhere.

If anything I could see the iPhone acting as the hub (for the first few generations at least) in the same way the iPhone is the hub for the Apple Watch. Not sure what protocol they would use to communicate, Bluetooth doesn't have the bandwidth and Wifi is still a power hog.

<comment><USER34> UWB that is in the iPhone 11's.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> By the way, here's an example of cool everyday-AR could be, if done right: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fm-4GPSnj94](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fm-4GPSnj94)

The killer applications of AR would be when glasses are as ubiquitous as smartphones and display the same virtual world for everyone:

Imagine walking outside and seeing your neighbor's favorite fictional character mowing their lawn, because that's the avatar they chose to display themselves to other AR users.

Or seeing kids battling their Pokémon in the park. :)

<comment><USER35> That YouTube video you showed, though, just left me wondering "why?" I mean, it looked cool, but we've all basically got our phones always in reach. If anything, I'd like _to get rid of plastic cards_ , not get more that would require glasses and an unintuitive interface to figure out what to do.

It just looked like a million other AR demos I've seen: gimmicky with less utility than what I've got now. I can imagine a place for AR, but "worse interface for something I can do right now on my phone" is not it.

<comment><USER24> > _gimmicks_

> _worse interface for something I can do right now on my [computer]_

Were quite literally the arguments people used against the advent of smartphones. :)

What problems do you think smartphones solved? People were not exactly clamoring for them.

Why do you think the Apple Watch became so successful?

When you don't HAVE to hold a phone to be able to do something, you wouldn't want to. In fact, I could see smartphones being supplanted by a combination of smartwatch + AR glasses.

<comment><USER36> > What problems do you think smartphones solved?

Mobility

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Interesting news as it pertains to the ARM Macs. Implies the graphics capabilities may be substantially better than most of us were anticipating- much better than the already very good iPad graphics.

</comment><comment><USER38> [https://archive.vn/Ue3Kp](https://archive.vn/Ue3Kp)

</comment><comment><USER39> The untethered headset makes sense from the perspective of Apple's history.

One of Apple's core tenets is that convenience trumps everything.

Often to the chagrin on power users. Always to the chagrin of spec lovers. But it has worked very well for them until now.

</comment><comment><USER40> What does this mean to me as an apple prosumer? When will this come out? What will it be like?

<comment><USER41> More like Google Glass and less like Microsoft Hololens / Magic Leap One

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> tldr: Ive: "Thinner."

<comment><USER43> " Ive balked at the prospect of selling a headset that would require a separate, stationary device for full functionality. He encouraged Rockwell and his team to redevelop N301 around the less powerful technology that could be embedded entirely in the device."</comment></comment>


JQuery BBQ: Back Button & Query Library - <AUTHOR> http://benalman.com/projects/jquery-bbq-plugin/

<comment><USER2> I've been using the jQuery Address plugin which seems to do the same thing: <http://www.asual.com/jquery/address/>

Such deep linking also needs to be combined with a progressive enhancement approach: each deep (hash-based) link must have a "non-deep" equivalent.

On my site, for example, both of these URLs point to the same "state":

<http://alikewise.com/Profile/FounderGuy/Book/42>

<http://alikewise.com/Profile/FounderGuy#/Book/42>

The first one is SEO-friendly, and also friendly in non-JS situations. The latter allows for a nice ajax experience.

<comment><USER3> I do the exact same thing with multiple sites, using Asual's address plugin (which I love, btw... it also integrates with G Analytics perfectly). The only difficulty I have is getting people to use the non-hashed links instead of just copying what's in the address bar. Google treats all of the hashed links as the same link (everything up to the hash mark).

The other problem is people end up copying URLs like: <http://alikewise.com/Profile/FounderGuy/Book/42#/Book/43>

(edit: I noticed your site automatically forwards to the hashed version, which I also considered -- but it breaks the back button!)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I could have used a plugin like this back when I would write scripts that polled to see when the #hash had changed in the document.location.

Plugins like this are great for SEO if you want your users to be able to link to different sections of content while one URL garners all the 'link juice'.</comment>


Cartographer - <AUTHOR> https://exp.v-os.ca/cartographer/ <comment><USER2> Website is stuck in Safari.

<comment><USER3> Same in Firefox "TypeError: storyJSON is undefined"</comment></comment>


Apple has biomedical engineers developing sensors to monitor blood sugar - <AUTHOR> http://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/12/apple-working-on-glucose-sensors-diabetes-treatment.html <comment><USER3> I'm a type 1 diabetic and I've been waiting for this. I'm not a big fan of watches but having a wrist mounted snippet of the email/Slack/text that I just received has been enticing, but not worth the 1 day charge time of the iWatch.

But even if the glucose testing function is somewhat above mediocre AND integrates well with a journal app of my ups and downs, I'm sold. No questions, line me up for a too-expensive band, the charging station, etc.

<comment><USER4> Do you REALLY want apple to have a recording of all your health data though ? I got a bad feeling about letting the GAFAs getting even more invasive.

<comment><USER5> I suspect if you are a diabetic that actually cares about his/her blood sugar, you wouldn't give two hoots as to the company that made it easier to monitor. You would simply want the device.

<comment><USER4> Until insurances use the data to make your life miserable. Until companies buy black market database and your resume is rejected everywhere and you can't get a loan.

It's always the same with democracy. You have to make those decisions before something actually happens. After it's too late.

<comment><USER3> I work at companies that pay 100% of my insurance, with no pre-existing clause BS. So do all of my job prospects.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Best of luck to them, noninvasive glucose monitoring is not something that has had a lack of attempts: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noninvasive_glucose_monitor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noninvasive_glucose_monitor)

But just because it might be a tough nut to crack, it isn't necessarily impossible. Interested to see how it develops.

<comment><USER7> The article mentions that too. But if one company had the money and wanted to do the pseudo-altruistic thinking of getting it working by just throwing money at it until someone came up with a breakthrough, Apple has the money to do that.

The article is right, they could make a fortune in sales after doing it, and since I'm sure there would be a patent chances are no other smart watch company would be able to make such a thing. I'm not sure that would make up for $2 billion in research (just to make up a number); but Apple can afford it.

<comment><USER8> 370 million diabetics in the world, it's also a disease of affluence [1] so they'll have money to buy an iphone and watch combo.

1\. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diseases_of_affluence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diseases_of_affluence)

<comment><USER9> Also consider that tech like this has applications beyond just diabetics. Glucose could be correlated with caloric intake. Tech like this could be a step toward the Apple Watch actually monitoring how much you are eating passively.

I would put money on that being the reason why Apple is developing it; not to directly help diabetics, but to add fitness features to the Apple Watch.

<comment><USER10> > Apple Watch actually monitoring how much you are eating passively

This is a technology grail for me. I'm for calorie counting and there's no doubt that it's integral part of weight loss. But entering all my meals in forms. Blerg. I only ever do it for a few months at a time before throwing in the towel.

<comment><USER11> wmeredith,

Have you ever heard of the HELO LX? You would find this an extremely interesting device. Wearable Technology with Life Sensing Sensors. Check out our 2 minute video at [http://Farmer.Helo.Life](http://Farmer.Helo.Life)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I don't understand how having ubiquitous sensors is the "holy grail for treating diabetes."

<comment><USER13> I am certainly not defending the article, but here is my take from living and being very close with a type-1 diabetic. The holy grail of __treating__ diabetes is technology that helps maintain excellent blood glucose control. Diabetes Mellitus (T1) is not a curable disease right now except through pancreas transplants. Diabetes is therefore a disease that has to be treated. The treatment for diabetes is personal, non-uniform, active, and adaptive. Every ingestion of food or liquid affects your body and needs to be considered.

Diabetes is a disease that needs its symptoms to be monitored and managed at a high granularity. Both monitoring and managing blood glucose can be really invasive though, with needles and finger-sticks causing extensive scar tissue development. Minimally invasive glucose monitoring technology that generates high-resolution time series data (such as Dexcom systems) literally transforms the way that people can manage their disease. Going from glucose reading every 6 hours (test strips) to every 5 minutes (CGM) is life changing. Monitoring that is non-invasive is the next technological step.

The holy grail for treating diabetes should actually be stabilized monomeric human insulin. Afrezza[0] is exactly that, and inhalable no less. The company that makes it just can't break through the insulin cartels and insurance- pharma exclusivity, so they are having a hard time. They did what was unachievable for 100 years though, and they are amazing chemists.

[0] [https://www.afrezza.com/hcp/afrezza-action- profile/](https://www.afrezza.com/hcp/afrezza-action-profile/)

<comment><USER14> What do you mean by "insurance-pharma exclusivity"?

<comment><USER13> I don't have a link available, but I will try to describe it.

Insurance company A needs to help with a wide variety of prescription needs -- cholesterol management, heart disease, kidney disease, cancers, MS, diabetes. Insurance company A negotiates with pharmaceutical companies B, C, and D for how much A will pay for any drug and what copay A will charge to the insured patient.

Pharma B makes a deal to ensure that their diabetes drugs are on tier 1 or preferred status (most likely to be approved/used/paid) in exchange for a very good deal to the insurance companies on the price for each prescription and a lower tier for their cholesterol drug. The agreement also states that all other diabetes drugs (insulin, let's say) will be tier 3 or need prior authorization. This is a contract that might last a year or 5 and is not public.

Company C makes a deal to get their MS drug as the only reasonably priced option in exchange for basically giving away their foot fungus drug. The insurance company is happy because every foot fungus prescription is pure profit. Company C is happy because they are they only game in town for MS treatments on that insurance provider.

Pharma D wants to get their insulin at a higher tier so that patients can afford it and not buy out of pocket. But Pharma B already has an agreement that all other insulins will be tier 3 or lower, so Pharma D is locked out of that insurance company.

The current health insurance and prescription system in the US __heavily__ favors large pharma companies that can negotiate on multiple grounds and leverage competing health interests. Small pharmas that offer a singular stellar product have a tremendous fight to even get past prior authorization.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Yesterday my Healbe GoBe 2 healthband arrived, it has an array of non-invasive sensors which values can be used to take a good guess at how much calories are burned from carbohydrates, proteins and fats. Each time you eat you have to push a button. [https://www.techwalla.com/12049437/healbe-gobe-2-is-a- fitnes...](https://www.techwalla.com/12049437/healbe-gobe-2-is-a-fitness-band- that-knows-what-youve-eaten-review)

<comment><USER16> I've investigated every device that claims to be able to accurately track calories expended and/or calories ingested.

On the calories expended side, the clear winner is a power meter on a bicycle. The power meter measures actual power output and energy expenditure, which is easily and accurately converted to kCal.

For the indirect devices, it's a massive mixed bag with some very unexpected observations. Measuring galvanic skin response ended up being quite inaccurate. Garmin devices without a heart rate strap were insanely inaccurate, sometimes reporting 300% higher-than-actual calories expended. The best device has actually been the Apple Watch paired with an iPhone. The calories reported are usually within 5% of actual.

As for the devices claiming to track calories ingested, every device has been either outright fraudulent or, at best, vaporware.

<comment><USER17> I am sorry but I cannot see how the power meter on a bicycle is "accurate" in this context. I am not trying to measure the part of the energy expended to run the cycle (which the power meter accurately measures) but the total energy expended by me while biking.An example; what if I put on some ankle weights while biking. How does the power meter know that? To explain with an almost farcical extreme example, if I attach a power meter to a step/chair while doing a step up step down exercise, it will register zero calories burned always. But I would most certainly be burning calories doing the exercise.

<comment><USER16> You're not understanding how the power meter works. Nor did I say that a power meter can be applied to every possible workout or piece of equipment.

In your ankle weight scenario, the added weight would, in effect, cancel out. You'd get a free boost to power output for 50% of a pedal stroke, and added resistance to the other 50% of the pedal stroke. These forces are being applied simultaneously on either side of the cranks. While one side is combating the added weight, the other side is feeling the boost of the additional weight.

And sure, there are additional caloric expenditures while cycling - <USER2> heart and respiration rate, utilization of muscles in your arms and torso, etc. - but they are marginal compared to the generation of 300-400W using, primarily, the muscles in your lower body.

Further, these differences are factored into the athlete's efficiency in turning calories into mechanical output. A trained cyclist is 25% efficient.

You seem to be attempting to be deliberately obtuse.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Most of the scientific breakthrough were preceded by improvement of measure instruments. IMHO a constant monitoring of some health indicators of many people good give invaluable data for researchers.

<comment><USER19> > a constant monitoring of some health indicators of many people good give > invaluable data for researchers.

Yes, Apple's researchers ...

<comment><USER20> Have you heard of ResearchKit?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Grew up in a household with an adult-onset type-1 diabetic whom had little remaining biological control, either high or low:

Interstitial monitoring has been "around the corner" for 30 years.

Let's hope some shop can deliver a reasonably-priced, accurate-enough interstitial or tiny implantable device that can replace daily/routine blood sampling.

</comment><comment><USER22> Is anyone else doing good quality home-testing/monitoring devices for other metrics? I occasionally look around for e.g. cholesterol and find that home kits are not thoroughly reviewed or unreliable if reviewed more thoroughly. In addition, they often miss important values or are considered painful/awkward to use. You could think of a few other metrics you might want to collect at home (say, kidney/liver function), and urine sticks seem the best option right now.

For blood glucose the problem seems more-or-less solved at a basic level (I've tried an Aviva Nano, seems pretty good) due to diabetic demand. I'm sure integration and further improvements are possible but I personally would like to see more frequent monitoring of more metrics.

</comment><comment><USER23> Whatever. HN may appreciate that there is a small force of nature callled #WeAreNotWaiting comprised of diabetic engineers and more that is tired of waiting for innovation to help manage the EVERYDAY in the life with out a pancreas.

<comment><USER24> Come on now. This shouldn't be dismissed as trivial. The most critical component of Nightscout (#WeAreNotWaiting's OSS) is continuous glucose monitoring. THIS provides THAT. And all by (what sounds like) wearing an Apple Watch 3 or 4.

Right now I have to drive a 1.5 inch needle into my gut every time I need to swap out my subcutaneous sensor, which is 1/week. These sensors are made of platinum and other precious metals and are expensive, especially without insurance. Plus, you have a lil nub sticking off your body, not the worse thing but it can get caught in door frames and what not.

I'm wearing an Apple Watch right now that shows my glucose readings (217 --> for the other T1Ds ;]). If I could remove the sensor from the equation, maybe even be liberated from my iPhone every now and again, it would ease dealing with my condition a good amount.

Simply put, one needs to monitor glucose passively to allow for the closed loop artificial pancreas these guys are working towards. This technology would make that monitoring so much easier, cheaper, more efficient and less wasteful.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> I saw a presentation at Stanford around 2000 of the science and engineering behind a watch-like device that would measure glucose levels in the interstitial fluid extracted from the skin with an electric zap. I think it is the GlucoWatch, which seems not to have worked out well in practice. [http://www.mendosa.com/glucowatch.htm](http://www.mendosa.com/glucowatch.htm) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cygnus_Inc](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cygnus_Inc)

</comment><comment><USER26> One would hope this would also lead to better data on things like diabetes. From what I have read, we really don't understand it as well as a lot of people seem to think. It would be nice to have more comprehensive data sets so we can figure out better treatment modalities.

</comment><comment><USER27> The holy grail for treating diabetes is not a continuous glucose monitor -- not even a noninvasive one. The holy grail for treating diabetes is regulating the immune system so that it doesn't attack beta cells.

</comment><comment><USER28> These guys from Israel have a very promising approach: [https://www.osapublishing.org/boe/fulltext.cfm?uri=boe-5-6-1...](https://www.osapublishing.org/boe/fulltext.cfm?uri=boe-5-6-1926&id=286417)

Is someone else in here besides me working on self-made tracking tools for logging your metrics beyond glucose? Would love to chat!

</comment><comment><USER29> Stupid me thinks that if they can measure data that is even indirectly related to blood glucose with sufficient quantity they can actually infer glucose level with quite accuracy. I.e. only with measuring heart beat, oxygen and co2 level at the skin, temperature and time of the day, and sufficient data crunching they can actually know the glucose levels.

<comment><USER30> Careful there. In this domain, you need the measurement to be accurate every time, and especially on atypical days: that one time you run a marathon or get stuck in the elevator with no food.

I get scared thinking of training a glucose predictor on big data. It could reach treacherously high accuracy scores, by secretly assuming every day is an average day.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Measuring glucose makes little sense, no matter how precisely and non- invasively it is done. Physiologically speaking is glucose part of the solution in people with impaired insulin function, not the problem.

</comment><comment><USER32> If Apple nail this one then their Apple Watch sales are going to sky rocket. I have a failing they can, especially with the type of money they have.

<comment><USER11> CodeSheikh, This is fantastic. The Helo LX is a device already ahead of Apple's Engineers. You can find the Helo LX at [http://Farmer.Helo.Life](http://Farmer.Helo.Life)

look into who Antonio De Rosa is. In short, he is our chief designer and he was on that Apple iWatch team in 2010. We are ahead of Apple on this one. Those sensors exist today and guess who has them?! But this is great, Apple has a much bigger marketing budget than we do.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> This is great, I have been waiting for this to monitor my body state. But is there already any good device or sensor that can monitor my heartbeat?

</comment><comment><USER11> This is fantastic. The Helo LX is a device already ahead of Apple's Engineers. You can find the Helo LX at [http://Farmer.Helo.Life](http://Farmer.Helo.Life)

look into who Antonio De Rosa is. In short, he is our chief designer and he was on that Apple iWatch team in 2010. We are ahead of Apple on this one. Those sensors exist today and guess who has them?! But this is great, Apple has a much bigger marketing budget than we do.

<comment><USER34> Not only do they have a much bigger marketing budget, but they seem to have a more experienced marketing team. Why is your site requiring me to send you personal information before I can watch a two minute clip that Fox did on you? Not only will I not send you that information, but I won't be able to watch your video and share with others what may or may not be some cool tech. You are shooting yourself in the foot using these "worst-practices".

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> That's great, but why not make them round?

</comment><comment><USER36> A low-carb diet? (Tongue-in-cheek, but not really.)

<comment><USER37> The average person eats a diet primarily of carbohydrates, particularly rice. Humans have been high carb diets for the entirety of recorded history.

It would be quite the failure of natural selection if eating a normal human diet caused type 2 diabetes.

<comment><USER38> "Recorded history" is too short for natural selection to occur. You don't get significant carbohydrates without agriculture, which is about as young. Besides, type 2 diabetes doesn't seem to have an impact on ability to pass on ones genes, so natural selection would be blind to it.

<comment><USER39> Agree up to "type 2 diabetes doesn't seem to have an impact on ability to pass on ones genes, so natural selection would be blind to it."

Individuals who have extensive family support do better than ones who do not. That's why we don't die the moment we stop being able to produce offspring. Grandparents care for grandchildren, and help pass on knowledge that is very helpful for survival.

So not blind to it. Reduced impact, yes, but not blind.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> to treat diabetes, the holy grail should only contain water or another low- glycemic beverage.

<comment><USER41> wrong diabetes type.

<comment><USER42> I really hate that two totally separate diseases have the same name.

<comment><USER43> Me too.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> Amazing the lengths our society will go to cling to our hedonism, even when it's killing us. We should be doing more with dietary solutions, not this.

<comment><USER45> That helps some forms of type-2, but not type-1. This would be a godsend for people if they can make it work reliably.

<comment><USER46> Judging by some posts I gleaned from /r/diabetes with a quick skim just now, even Type 1's who regulate their net carb intake benefit by being able to reduce their required insulin. In the US, that is a very significant personal financial factor with our broken healthcare system.

That forum is littered with Type 1's sharing prices of their insulin medications. From what I read, there are many different kinds of insulin, and even the generic kind that WalMart sells without a prescription (in some states) is not cheap for middle-income households. And unless you have gold- plated medical insurance, the really nice insulin can run into low thousands per month, depending upon your required dosage.

Type 2 takes up a disproportionate amount of healthcare funds because for most patients diet and moderate exercise can mitigate it according to enough researchers that Sweden's national health system switched to advocating low- carb for Type 2 diabetics. Karl Denninger at Market Ticker is a vociferous advocate of low carb for Type 2's, based upon his first-hand experience, and has written a lot about the financial aspects.

EDIT: I'm guessing downvotes are from Type 2 patients here who get pissed off when told diet and moderate exercise can help them. I don't think folks in /r/diabetes, /r/fasting, /r/keto, Karl Denninger, Dr. Fung, _etc._ are saying you'll be cured; it sounds more like better control leading to fewer late-life complications (which is where the real healthcare expenses get out of control). I'm coming in at this from the life extension and the terrible US healthcare financial picture angle; I keep seeing interesting caloric restriction research intersecting with low-carb findings and keep running across diabetics fiddling around with the same protocols that caloric restriction life extension folks like me are experimenting with. As always, YMMV, but I keep seeing enough diabetics dabbling with low-carb and caloric restriction that it raises my eyebrow, and that Sweden thought it was enough to switch their recommendations should be given some consideration when putting together your own health plan.

<comment><USER47> For type 1 and type 2, the more insulin you take per day, the lower your blood sugar will be. If you a1c is too high, you unquestionably must take more insulin. Simple as.

Should you exercise more? Yeah. Should you eat better? Yeah. Should you cut refined carbs? Yes, you probably should. None of these are unique to diabetics, but they get levied on us when we talk about insulin prices or complications with our condition.

Also, you owe it to yourself to be extremely skeptical when looking at any "diet doctor" selling a book. Most stretch the cure factor of lifestyle far beyond its limit.

The advice to someone with a high a1c is the same in every case: take more insulin.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Chrome Extension for Thread Update Notifications? - <AUTHOR>

I've tried searching but didn't find anything. Maybe I missed it. But does anyone know if there is a Chrome extension that allows you to follow threads and get a notification of some form that indicates there are new comments on the thread?<p>I can save threads to read later but manually checking threads that I like to save to see what others say seems to be incredibly tedious. <comment><USER2> I was just thinking about something similar the other day.

I wasn't thinking about a Chrome extension, which might be a better solution, but instead a way to ping the site periodically to get the total number of comments and then send out a text message or something to people (with an associated web interface for people to subscribe).

Of course, it'd be nicer if that was just built into the site, but it also gives the opportunity for some of us to build our own solutions if we're so inclined :-).

On a side note, I've been putting some work recently into pulling data from the HN Who's Hiring threads and shared some of that today here: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7687128](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7687128)

Unfortunately, there weren't any comments so I'm not sure if people just didn't see it or just weren't interested in asking the same questions I have related to the listings that get posted :-(.</comment>


Microsoft's Cumulative Revenue Quietly Surpasses $1 Trillion - <AUTHOR> http://jeffreifman.com/2016/05/08/microsoft-revenue-quietly-surpasses-1-trillion/ <comment><USER2> The excess funds Microsft and others are holding offshore needs to be repatriated. There is too much dollar liquidity offshore helping US competition, and too little at home where the liquidity is needed. The Fed is also needlessly maintaining a stimulative posture where repatriation of overseas dollars through tax policy could relieve a significant portion of this burden.

<comment><USER3> My understanding is that most unrepatriated earnings are actually deposited in US banks, meaning that those dollars are already being lent into the US economy. Repatriation is a tax accounting issue.</comment></comment>


Launch HN: Hawkeye – Learn where people look in your products - <AUTHOR> Hey HN, Matt from Hawkeye Labs (https://usehawkeye.com) here!
Everyone knows understanding user behavior is essential to improving products. As recent success stories like Superhuman and Notion have shown, good design is everywhere these days. This means it's more important than ever to get actionable insights into how people use your products.
However, existing research tools could be a lot better. One option is event-based analytics and always-on screen recorders, but these services only show you which pages the user visits and what actions they perform. Another approach is conducting narrated studies with paid participants. These sessions give you a huge amount of information, but can become boring to watch and often aren't representative of real users.
Hawkeye takes a different approach to user research. Using the TrueDepth camera on iOS devices, Hawkeye lets you track where people look in your products without the need for any extra hardware. This gives you a far better understanding of the user's thought process than traditional screen recordings. You can see where they get confused, what grabs their attention, and begin to understand why they perform the actions they do.
Today, we're excited to launch the Hawkeye testing platform. Right off the bat, you can test any mobile website or InVision prototype, with more test types coming soon. The platform lets you invite participants to complete tests on their own devices and makes it easy to play back screen recordings and view heatmaps from your product.
This is just the start of what we have planned. Zooming out a bit, we believe providing automated, yet deeper insights into user experience can make it far easier for anyone to improve their products.
You can sign up for free at https://usehawkeye.com. We'd love to hear your feedback and I'm happy to answer any and all questions! Feel free to reach out in the comments or shoot an email to email@example.com. Thanks everyone! <comment><USER2> Very cool tech! I've always wanted to deploy this on something. Will be contacting y'all in the future.

<comment><AUTHOR> Awesome! Happy to help get you set up :) Feel free to shoot me an email at firstname.lastname@example.com

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Yikes! getting Chrome/Mac Console errors when creating a new project ;-) check intercom for screenshots.

</comment><comment><USER3> sweet jesus! will try this now [https://VisualSitemaps.com](https://VisualSitemaps.com) thanks for making this. btw, love your B&W color scheme!</comment>


It's No Accident: Advocates Want to Speak of Car 'Crashes' Instead - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/23/science/its-no-accident-advocates-want-to-speak-of-car-crashes-instead.html <comment><USER2> I'm not surprised considering the litigious nature of American society and the typical knee-jerk reaction to spread the blame as much as possible when an accident occurs.

But I'm hoping people and other more reasonable governments reject this newspeak agenda by various state, local, and federal agencies.

I find it hilarious (but not suprised) that the NYT calls them "advocates"</comment>


How Steve Jobs acquired the mouse and GUI (video) - <AUTHOR> http://www.extremetech.com/computing/104661-how-steve-jobs-stole-the-mouse-and-gui-video

<comment><USER2> Wonder why the story for decades was that Apple stole it from Xerox then Microsoft stole it from Apple while developing for the Mac? For most of my life, that's the story people would say to me.

<comment><USER3> Because, for decades, Apple haters have been curiously following the strategy of claiming that Apple is not innovative at all, and thus, by "stealing" from Xerox, it justifies Microsoft's theft of the UI.

The fact that Apple compensated Xerox with pre-IPO stock, and more importantly, had a license agreement from Xerox, and even more importantly, Xerox didn't' have the GUI to steal (that being an invention of Apple made based on being awakened to the possibility by Xerox) is still ignored or claimed to be false, even here on hacker news.

In fact, it was only a couple months ago, on this very site, where a bunch of fandroids were attacking Apple on this same issue, and despite responding, with a citation to the real story, showing that Apple had licensed the technology, I was down voted to oblivion and repeatedly people asserted I was wrong (yep, just asserted.) I remember one, memorable response: "Just stop, its been widely accepted by us that Apple stole the GUI from Xerox". Its rare that someone uses the popularity of a myth as justification for its truth, but there it was.)

Already, the same people are claiming that multi-touch has existed for years before the iPhone, and pointing to single-touch panels of the crossed wired style, or stylus driven interfaces as "proof".

From this I conclude that most people who oppose patents and innovation do not understand technology well enough, or do not have any engineering background, and thus cannot tell the difference between two sheets of plastic with a grid of intersecting wires where pressure causes the wires to connect, and a capacitive touch panel, that maps out the shape of each picture, uses an accelerometer to determine the orientation of the device and then figures out which finger of the hand is touching it and thus from that, which pixel in the amorphous blob of contact the user is intending to touch.

To them, they're both the same, and thus Apple's not innovative because its all been done before, and we should shut down the patent system.

I just wouldn't expect that kind of ignorance on a site dedicated to High Tech Startups where, you pretty much have to have at least one founder who knows how to write software.

<comment><USER4> "that being an invention of Apple made based on being awakened to the possibility by Xerox"

I'm so curious what you mean by this, unless you have redefined what GUI means.

<comment><USER5> I would guess [http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&s...](http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&story=On_Xerox,_Apple_and_Progress.txt) describes what he means. Also note [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_graphical_user_i...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_graphical_user_interface), which states

 _"There is still some controversy over the amount of influence that Xerox's PARC work, as opposed to previous academic research, had on the GUIs of Apple's Lisa and Macintosh, but it is clear that the influence was extensive, because first versions of Lisa GUIs even lacked icons"_

That seems to imply that the Xerox machines did not have icons.

I do not know whether the folklore.org description is accurate, but believe it to be essentially correct. If it is, the Xerox UIs looked were very different from the Macintosh that shipped in 1984 (no icons, no menu bar, no object-verb metaphor, no dragging of objects)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Should a CEO be able to code? - <AUTHOR>

I've worked in places where the CEO is basically the technical co-founder and also in places where the CEO barely had a fleeting grasp of common HTML tags (both were web-oriented companies, both were small startups).  The biggest guys like Google, Facebook, etc. seem to put people with CS/engineering backgrounds at the helm... I've even read that Zuckerberg occasionally commits some production code himself.
Obviously that's far from the core responsibilities of a CEO.  My question is oriented towards whether a CEO being able to grasp the technical concepts on a deeper level actually makes a difference to the success of the company.
Interestingly enough, the company I worked for with the non-technical CEO actually made a lot more money and is AFAIK much more successful than the other I mentioned.  I'm just curious about other peoples' experiences with this. <comment><USER2> "web oriented" doesn't give nearly enough detail to answer the question. The CEO must understand, in excruciating detail, how his company earns a living. If the differentiating factor is that the company earns a living because their technology is superior (see pg's many early writings on this topic) then the CEO better be technical.

</comment><comment><USER3> I think a CTO should, but I personally would feel more comfortable with a business development or sales oriented CEO depending on the nature of the business. A person can embody both, but If I had to chose, I would want a business focused CEO that does no mettle in the technical decision of the CIO/CTO office.

</comment><comment><USER4> For a startup the CEO has to add a lot of value. Usually in startup mode this means creating something i.e. code. If the CEO isn't coding he better be selling.</comment>


Ask HN: Should I branch off my startup's technology into a separate company? - <AUTHOR>

My two co-founders and I own a profitable home services company that runs on a proprietary technology platform that I've built. Over the past two years, I've put the majority of work into the startup, with most of the effort dedicated towards building and maintaining the platform. However, over the course of the past year, my two co-founders have begun to take a backseat in the operation of the business. We've had many late night conversations about this but it doesn't appear to resolve any of my concerns. It's been extremely demotivating for me while I still continue to invest the same chunk of effort into building out the platform. Sometimes, features and fixes are delayed simply because of the occasional resent I carry. However, I have a proposal that I'd like to bring to the table--branching off the technology into a separate company and licensing it to the home services company to use for free. I feel this would greatly motivate me again to work on the platform--it's a win-win situation in my eyes. If this were to happen, there is still software development needed on the home services company to interface with the platform. What are your thoughts on this? Should I give equity to my co-founders within this new company? We did hire a short-term contractor to work on the platform which never surpassed $5,000.00. The rest of the work was done solely by me. Interested to hear some feedback on this since this has been brewing in my head for awhile! <comment><USER2> Depending on how you've set the business up, the company may (and probably should) own the code, which would essentially make this not very feasible-- without a rewrite, anyway.

I've been in your shoes, in terms of co-founder not pulling his weight (it was family, too--oops!), and I did not find a resolution. I ended up ceasing work on what I think was likely to become a very nice lifestyle business (we were already ramen-profitable), because I was going to have to do all of the work.

I could re-create the tech (I built everything), but I haven't, partially to avoid any bad feelings, partially because I'm doing other things.

Given that you hired a contractor, and that presumably your technology is your whole company's value (you seem to think it's almost all of the work that's been done), I'm not sure why it'd be okay to take that elsewhere, except by virtue of "these guys don't deserve it!"

The correct answer to "these guys don't deserve it" is to have clauses to handle that in your business documents--vesting, cliffs, etc. It's almost certainly not "take the technology and run."

You might be able to sort-of blackmail your co-founders into accepting your deal, but I imagine it's going to be approached in that fashion. "I want this to happen or I'm done building things" seems to be where you're at, and that's really not okay. (Edit: I think it's not okay to demand the technology. I think it's fine to demand their time, and perhaps a revised agreement where they all have to put in time to vest shares!)

Don't get me wrong--I side with you. I just think the best option is probably to not continue, or to continue at a capacity that you're comfortable with, given their work input.

That said, I've been fucked in a few business ventures now, and perhaps I'm erring way too far from where the money is. I don't think I have any regrets, I'm proud of how I handle myself--but I don't have any money, either!

</comment><comment><USER3> Question: Have you and your co-founders each executed an agreement assigning all right, title and interest in and to any IP to the company? If so, the code isn't yours to take, and it makes no sense for your co-founders to give away any IP rights (copyrights and potential patent rights).

Your narrative tends to cast your partners as distracted by other business ventures, it seems that you are searching for a way to disengage. If they were savvy, they would not agree to your proposal. The code base is company property (that is if you have completed the process of corporate formation). You might believe that your contribution in teh form of code disproportionately exceeds your co-founders contributions. Had you actually formed a company, assigned the IP to the company, determined the value of each founders contributions in addition to any IP (cash, equipment, space, expertise, time commitments) you would be able to foresee how your co-founders will respond to your proposal.

IF I'm incorrect and you have filed articles of incorporation, drafted bylaws, and executed agreements issuing founders stock, then I suggest you consult with your outside counsel (you know, the attorney(s) who drafted all those agreements for you) to help ensure you don't f_ck up the operations of your "profitable home services business".

Suggest you ask yourself the following "why am I walking away from a profitable business? Especially when I committed to building that business with my co-founders?"

Maybe you have realized you don't get along and so you want out. In that case, offer to purchase the code base, and agree to payment terms that provides enough runway for you to generate revenue and pay for the code base over time.

Finally, you wouldn't be "giving" equity to your co-founders. You would be issuing equity in exchange for the "home services company" assigning all right, title and interest in and to the code base and any associated IP to your new company. If your platform is adding value, it makes little sense for them to agree to an assignment. Instead, they should offer to license it to your new company for royalties, equity, and continued development.

Summum Bonum.

</comment><comment><USER4> I think that you already have your answer :) You want to do it, do it. I saw your submissions, this is the second time you post this along with "What to do if co-founders are distracted by other business ventures?". If you're not happy, just try to do whatever makes you happy. Your time is valuable, don't waste it being dissatisfied.</comment>


Clearing the Air - <AUTHOR> http://solarroadways.com/clearingthefreakinair.shtml <comment><USER3> The funny part is, they don't really refute the claims made against them.

For example, they don't know how much the panels for roadways will cost them. But the back of the envelope calculation (for just the glass) is around $60T. That's a hard number to work around. Even if that estimate is off by an order of magnitude, then that's still a ton more than we spend on roads.

Also, they state glass is tougher than asphalt. I don't think anyone was trying to argue that glass isn't harder than asphalt, but rather that given enough wear and tear, their glass panels will likely smooth out and reduce traction significantly. The onus is on them to prove that their surface will last with some legitimate road wear tests.

Finally, they point out that LED lighting is clearly visible in the direct sunlight... well, it is from a direct angle. Again, the onus is on them to show that their LED lane markers will be visible from a natural driver's perspective. More importantly, they'll have to show why it will be important to have dynamic markers on highways to begin with, and that they'll be as effective as existing strips.

Really, I don't think that they answered their critics in any sort of meaningful way. Solar roadways are a sexy idea, but not all that practical when you get down to it.

<comment><USER4> My _biggest_ concern is short- and long-term traction. I ride a sport-touring motorcycle. A _LOT_ if research has gone into the small patch of rubber meeting asphalt. How is that going to change?

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> > As you can see, asphalt has a hardness of 1.3, copper has a hardness of 3, > iron and nickel have a hardness of 4, and steel falls between 4 and 4.5. As > you get closer to diamond, you finally come to glass, which has a hardness > of 5.5-6.0. So if anyone tries to tell you that glass is soft, just remind > them that even simple window glass is harder than steel. By comparison, it's > asphalt that is soft.

Haha, this reply on that particular point is a joke. On the contrary you WANT asphalt to be soft, not hard on the road, because asphalt needs to be elastic. When a large truck goes on your road, you need the asphalt to show elasticity so that it can carry such weight and come back to its former state. Tensile strength and Ultimate tensile strength are the actual parameters you want to look it for such road materials and certainly not hardness. The harder your surface, the most prone it is to break when facing heavy tensions/forces.

<comment><USER6> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tile](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tile)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> So, they respond to numerous fairly well founded accusations that their 'idea' is laughably lacking in solid analysis with... a cherry picked selection of accusations and rebuttals which are _also_ laughably lacking solid analysis.

My favorite part is where they used, as a defence to accusations that their idea won't fly commercially: "We are still in R & D, and we haven't even calculated the cost for our prototype". Riiiiight. They haven't even _calculated_ the cost of their prototype, but you can totally trust their claims that the product will pay for itself. I wonder what assumptions they've made about future energy prices. My guess - none at all.

</comment><comment><USER8> It's like watching the Logical Fallacy Olympics.

He took the dumbest obviously wrong arguments and "demolished" them, while actually ignoring the valid ones.

His cost argument doesn't make any sense. He is comparing some mythical 12x12' $10k panels to the same size of asphalt and is magically breaking even.

<comment><USER9> > His cost argument doesn't make any sense. He is comparing some mythical > 12x12' $10k panels to the same size of asphalt and is magically breaking > even.

That stuck out at me as well. He's sort of saying " _IF_ we could make these things for $10k per 144 sq ft section, then it would be cost competitive with asphalt." But then he completely punts on the question of how much it's likely to cost. It's not difficult to make some order of magnitude estimates for the cost of raw materials and the omission of such an estimate (even if just to show that the $10k per 144 sq ft goal is _plausible_ ) is, well... odd.

<comment><USER8> That, and the fact that asphalt doesn't cost $70 per sq foot. More like $2-3 per sq foot, and probably cheaper if you're doing it at large scale.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Okay, got it, glass is more resistant to scratching than steel. Now grind sand and rock against either for days, let alone months or years. It's going to lose its optical qualities. Bad optics, no sunlight, no energy or LED light.

I _love_ the idea of a smart roadway that helps pay for its self. But I don't think this design hits the mark yet.

</comment><comment><USER11> > One unscrupulous individual even took our viral Solar Freakin' Roadways > video (by volunteer Michael Naphan) without our permission, and has used it > to create another video, in which he has embedded deliberately misleading > information. He is even making money by placing advertising on it to make a > profit!

If anyone is wondering I think this is the video they are talking about: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H901KdXgHs4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H901KdXgHs4)

The funny thing is that they don't actually counter any of his claims, just mention everything that is wrong with the current system and say how it will be wonderful if that wasn't the case.

Yes, it would be wonderful, but when you're not even releasing the information for how much your prototypes cost the "it's going to get cheaper" argument isn't convincing anyone.

</comment><comment><USER12> Some points they don't address:

        * Maintaining the high-friction surface of the glass as it is worn down
        * Keeping the road surface transparent to sunlight as it is abraded away and covered with dirt, motor oil and ground rubber
        * Huge energy requirements for melting snow, especially in areas where snow, ice and winter storms would reduce the energy generated by the panels
        * The _actual_ cost of their road surface compared to asphalt

</comment><comment><USER13> Honestly, I thought this was great. They don't have every minute detail figured out yet, but they've generated enough interest to start getting there. I'm just glad they spoke up.

<comment><USER14> It honestly sounds like they not only have every minute detail figured out, but they don't even have real cost estimates figured out.

<comment><USER13> "We are still in R & D, and we haven't even calculated the cost for our prototype. That will come next month as we get our final report ready for our Phase II contract with the Federal Highway Administration. And even if we had those numbers available now they would have no relevance to the cost of our actual product.

When you are prototyping, you are buying parts in very low quantities, which is the least cost efficient way possible. When you go into production, you order your parts in the 10's of thousands, greatly reducing the costs. Thanks to our funding from Indiegogo, we are now going to hire a team of engineers this summer, who will help us make tweaks to the design, streamline production and get costs down. At that point, we'll be able to release cost information.

But right now, not even we have that information, so if you read an article where a journalist claims to have any data on costs, you can be assured that they have not done their homework and are quoting another unreliable source or they are making up numbers."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I thought the premise of the "Solar Freakin' Roadways" video was to pit the solar roadways against a direct competitor like, solar freakin' panels _above_ the roadways.

<comment><USER16> The real premise is to pit SFR against a _sane_ alternative. Even putting panels above (or alongside) _all_ roadways is prohibitive due to the transmission line requirements ($1 - $2 million per mile).

There's far more to be said for siting solar _where you use it_ (e.g., on top of roofs, buildings, parking structures, etc.), or _where the siting is optimal, in concentrated locations_. Because it turns out we're _not_ hurting for space to put solar cells, but rather, _we need to get the costs down_. A 100 mile square of solar collectors in the desert would more than provide for all electrical generating needs for the US, and you'd have a small set of long-distance transmission lines from it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> What an immature post. I get what they;re saying, but it really could have been phrased better.

</comment><comment><USER18> For context, the video they are referring to is here: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H901KdXgHs4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H901KdXgHs4)

This really is a textbook case of how not to respond to criticism. There's a little bit of everything. You've got the incredibly bad misunderstanding of fair use:

> One unscrupulous individual even took our viral Solar Freakin' Roadways > video (by volunteer Michael Naphan) without our permission, and has used it > to create another video, in which he has embedded deliberately misleading > information. He is even making money by placing advertising on it to make a > profit!

The paranoid delusions:

> the naysayers began coming out in force trying to grab some attention. They > use non-scientific "facts", misquote and mislead, and sometimes flat out > lie. They write unprofessional articles and create deceiving videos to lead > people astray... And there are other journalists who have written articles > with really irresponsibly misleading information.

The labeling of other people's cost figures as "false" when they admit they have no idea whether they are false or not:

> We are still in R & D, and we haven't even calculated the cost for our > prototype.

Presenting a false dilemma: either heat the roads or _your children will die_ :

> Does the current system of snow removal sound cheap to anyone? What would > saving over 1300 lives and preventing over 115,000 injuries per year be > worth?

(No mention of the original context of the criticism, which was that heating roads are expensive _relative to plowing the snow, the existing way we get snow off roads_ )

Presenting a traffic light as evidence that LEDs can be seen in bright sunlight, completely forgetting the fact that traffic lights require sun visors _for the sole purpose of making the LEDs visible_. Not to mention that they have Fresnel lenses, louvers, and all other kinds of special engineering that makes them visible in sunlight. No mention of what kind of analogous techniques they will use. And a picture of the LEDs in a very dark room, to drive the point home that they will work in sunlight, trust us.

A claim that glass is a suitable material for roads because of its moh's hardness rating. By that logic, tungsten carbide wedding rings would be indestructible, and in reality, one bad drop from waist height can destroy them [0]. This is an an argument so bad I can't believe an actual scientist wrote it. Hell, Wikipedia even says in the first paragraph "the Mohs scale is not suitable for accurately gauging the hardness of industrial materials." This argument doesn't even reflect a _first-paragraph-Wikipedia-level understanding of the topic_.

Long discussion of the troubles of the existing road system with the hidden implication that pretty much anything would be better (except, you know, all the stuff that would be worse).

Seriously, this is really, really bad. I was hoping they had some novel surface protectant they would pull out and say "sure, this would be bad with ordinary glass, but we've got this special coating that is cheap to produce and will change materials science and we're putting it through final testing now." But no, they literally intend to do this with off-the-shelf tech, appeal to a hardness argument that wouldn't pass a high school chemistry test, and brand everybody who disagrees with them as "irresponsibly misleading" "naysayers".

[0] [http://www.examiner.com/article/exclusive-handle-with- care-t...](http://www.examiner.com/article/exclusive-handle-with-care- tungsten-ring-break-shatter-and-crack-warning)

<comment><USER19> > Presenting a traffic light as evidence that LEDs can be seen in bright > sunlight, completely forgetting the fact that traffic lights require sun > visors for the sole purpose of making the LEDs visible. Not to mention that > they have Fresnel lenses, louvers, and all other kinds of special > engineering that makes them visible in sunlight. No mention of what kind of > analogous techniques they will use. And a picture of the LEDs in a very dark > room, to drive the point home that they will work in sunlight, trust us.

And LEDs have limited view angles. When I look at the LEDs on a traffic sign I get a good view angle. LEDs embedded in the road would be at a poor angle for viewing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> I'm quite surprised to see HN as the source for some of the naysayers. Sure, there are a lot of hurdles still in their way, but I don't see why they are insurmountable. This work is definitely more meaningful than the latest advertising algorithm or social graph analysis most of us are working on, even if it doesn't pan out in the end.

<comment><USER11> "but I don't see why they are insurmountable."

Have you tried thinking?

Start with "heating the road" to melt snow. The most efficient way to use sunlight to do this is to turn all the energy we get from it into heat. But wait, thanks to the magic of black body absorption and emission the asphalt already does this. And since it's black it absorbs most of the incoming light that strikes it transforming it to heat.

Yet this isn't enough to melt the snow on the roads, because we have snow on the roads. So somehow replacing this nearly 100% efficient system with one that is about 15% efficient will solve our problems how exactly?

You are allowed to dream as much as you want, but when one of your main applications of what you're touting as a solution breaks two out of three laws of thermodynamics you're selling bullshit.

<comment><USER21> > Have you tried thinking?

This is unnecessary and completely undermined any point you had.

<comment><USER11> If being nice was a prerequisite for being right everyone from Socrates onwards is wrong.

<comment><USER21> In one sentence, subtly hinting that there's no possible way you could be wrong and comparing yourself to the great philosophers.

While impressive self-aggrandizing, in no way did I say "be nice" and that's a pretty disingenuous reading of what I wrote. You could have made your point without the little left hook in your text _without_ trying to be nice.

Since you're arguing with me on something I consider to be readily apparent, I can mostly figure out that I'm wasting my time. (And, also, I have a hard time imagining Socrates responding to "I can't see your point of view" with "that's because you're not using your brain, dumbass.")

<comment><USER11> Unless someone went behind my back and figured out how to use quantum mechanics in macroscopic systems to beat the second law of thermodynamics there isn't a way I can be wrong.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I'm not seeing many actual rebuttals here. I don't have a hell of a lot of context because I don't know what the exact initial claims were, but take this:

"False Claim: we can't afford to heat roads"

Their response doesn't actually talk about the feasibility of heating roads. They don't mention how much energy their solar panels will have stored before a snow storm, and whether or not it would be sufficient to melt lots of snow.

My half-assed guess is that there's maybe enough energy in theory to melt an inch or two of snow, but they don't really provide sufficient detail:

(From their website):

"Currently, the full size hexagons are 36-watt solar panels, with 69-percent surface coverage by solar cells. This will become 52-watts when we cover the whole surface when we go into production. When we add piezoelectric, they'll be capable of producing even more power. Also, as the efficiency of solar cells increase, more power will be converted.

We tested the heaters over the winter with a DC power supply that provided them with 72-watts. This was an overkill and made the surface warm to the touch on most winter days. We still need to experiment with different voltages at different temperatures, to determine the minimum amount of power required to keep the surface above freezing. Remember, they don't have to heat up to 85 degrees like the defroster wire in the windows of your car: they only have to keep the surface warm enough to prevent snow/ice accumulation (35 degrees?)."

You need what, like 300 Joules to melt a single gram of ice/snow/etc. So their 50W panels could melt a gram of water per 6 seconds.

I can't figure out how big the panels are, but their website seems to say 4 square feet. So each 2'x2' square area (hexagon, whatever) can melt 0.166 grams of ice/snow/etc per second.

Say you get a hypothetical snowfall of 2" (not very damn much for some areas). That's 4 ft * 2 in of snow, or 2/3 of a cubic foot. That's about 10 pounds of water in solid form, or 4.5k grams. So assuming their 50W panels are 100% efficient at melting snow, it would take their accumulated energy about 8 hours to melt the snow. (Of course please check my math, I might be off by an order of magnitude on either end here)

That seems at least theoretically possible, but there's no discussion about how much energy a panel can store, or other factors that would weigh in here. There's no actual technical discussion whatsoever for that matter. So I was kind of disappointed by the article.

Edit, sorry: 'It would take their panels about 8 hours to accumulate the energy necessary to melt 2" of snow' (That's at least somewhat in the realm of possibility, though for many areas 8 hours of direct sunlight during the winter ain't happening, and a guarantee of a max of ~2" of snow in a day also ain't happening)

<comment><USER23> 1\. I have a steep driveway, and when it was poured I looked into putting a heating element in it for about 20 feet to keep the ice off. I don't remember the details, but it was a fantastic amount of money to do it, and required special heavy amperage power connections. I abandoned the idea.

2\. If using heating elements was cost efficient to keep ice off, you can bet the military and civilian airfields would use it to keep the runways clear. They do not. My father used to work at an Alaska military airbase, he said that snow and ice removal on the runway was a 24/7 operation. They weren't fools, if the heating element idea would work they'd have used it.

<comment><USER4> The question I have is how different the solar roadways, designed with this in mind, would behave from running heating elements through concrete or asphalt? Could they get an order of magnitude difference?

<comment><USER16> Their proposal _is_ running heating elements through the roadbed. The heaters are even on different circuits from the solar elements.

The only difference is that the top layer is glass rather than concrete / asphalt.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> For an attack on false information, they seem very light on the facts.

> False claim: We picked a really stupid place to put solar panels

They put forward several arguments as to why solar roads would be a good idea. The problem with this is that it does not address the opportunity cost - <USER2> argument should not be why solar roadways would be good, but why solar roadways would be better than solar rooftops or solar fields. The complete lack of figures here is not helping them.

> False Claim: Solar Roadways is going to cost $60 trillion dollars

OK, so it won't cost $60 trillion, so what will it cost? Again, no numbers, no estimate, just "we don't think it will cost $60 trillion, but we can't substantiate why"

> False Claim: Asphalt roads are cheap and maintainable

Not going to argue the claim (whether it is true or not). But what research have you conducted into how Solar Roadways would be better, other than the (unsubstantiated) claims that the roads will pay for themselves.

> False Claim: we can't afford to heat roads

They lead with ""Over 70 percent of the nations roads are located in snowy regions, which receive more than five inches (or 13 cm) average snowfall annually. Nearly 70 percent of the U.S. population lives in these snowy regions". Then follow up with "Each year, 24 percent of weather-related vehicle crashes occur on snowy, slushy or icy pavement. Over 1,300 people are killed and more than 116,800 people are injured in vehicle crashes on snowy, slushy or icy pavement annually." Finally concluding with "Does the current system of snow removal sound cheap to anyone? What would saving over 1300 lives and preventing over 115,000 injuries per year be worth? Not to mention medical bills, vehicle repair, lost wages, etc."

I am sorry, but that is not how it works. That is nearly implying that no one will ever die on a solar roadway. I agree that there may be benefits, but the article has used statistics in a way that is meaningless.

> False Claim: Glass is softer than asphalt

Where to start on this. Hardness is a horrible characteristic to choose a road surface for. Sure, glass may be harder, but will it be more durable? Cracks, structural weaknesses and fractures all will cause problems in glass if all you are worried about is hardness. It's been a while since high school science, but I still remember this. Asphalt doesn't need to be hard, as if it is scratched or compressed, there is just more road base beneath it.

There are many more problems with that article, but that should do for now. I am amazed that Solar Roadways would publish a rebuttal article in this style that is so light on the facts and that chooses claims selective to their cause (such as the hardness of glass). I feel sorry for those that have committed on Indiegogo if the calibre of the author is indicative of the calibre of the company.

Despite all of the above, I will give them credit for using "Clearin' the freakin' air" as a title for the article

</comment><comment><USER25> It saddens me to see how much this (obviously terrible) idea has caught on in the general population. Science literacy should be a higher priority for our education system.

</comment><comment><USER6> This is a great idea for a start up. A service for debunking non petroleum technology.

All it takes is a bunch of internet smart nay-sayers with a telemarketing script. From looking arround here the debunking doesn't even have to be good. The appaling quality of it has my eyes rolling with dollar signs. People believe anything(!!??), all it takes is to announce yourself to be an expert who use to work in solar roads, then explain the futility of it all; Make sure to drape it with so much negativity that the positive discussion is drowned out. Like taking candy from a baby.[1]

Given the exponential growth of the solar industry[2] the damage control has exponential effect. Something has to be done if the people with money want to continue bleading the little guy dry. How are we going to heard the little peoples children into our military bases if they can just tap energy from the sun? If you give them any time to themselves they will get all sorts of ideas of their own, stuff revolutions are made of, potentially disasterous. Say people notice their cars are much to heavy for the new road? We would not just loose big on our roads made from oil, our whole swindle could come down like a house of cards. They could very well all change into communists, then we would have to take other liberties and put them all down.

My business would be like a glorious beacon of hope, saving the little people from themselves.

[1] - [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90TzRnrV14I](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90TzRnrV14I) [2] - [http://theenergycollective.com/eliashinckley/315371/solar- in...](http://theenergycollective.com/eliashinckley/315371/solar-industry-red- hot-will-it-get-hotter)

</comment><comment><USER19> They use an artists rendering for the Times Square image to show how bright LEDs are!

[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/24/nyregion/24sign.html?pagew...](http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/24/nyregion/24sign.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0)

</comment><comment><USER16> The more I hear from the Solar Roadways people, the more incompetent (or scam- artisty) they sound.

I'd written an earlier critique after a bunch of posts sprouted on G+ and reddit: "Solar Roadways": either a scam or gross incompetence" [http://redd.it/26on7y](http://redd.it/26on7y)

As to this "clearing the air", it just reinforces that position.

"The point is that our highway infrastructure is in an embarrassingly antiquated state and the U.S. is no longer able to keep going with our current system of asphalt roads." These clowns keep dragging their goalposts all over the field. First it's cheap solar, now it's "the roads will pay for themselves" and "we need rugged infrastructure". The problems with this:

• Solar infrastructure which cannot pay for _itself_ cannot pay for roads _in addition to itself._

• There's an existing ruggedized highly-durable efficient roadbed technology for long-haul passenger and freight traffic. It does away, incidentally, with asphalt. It's called _railroads_ : steel rails on wooden sleepers and gravel ballast.

"Solar Roadways is going to cost $60 trillion"

(NB: "dollars" is redundant if you're using the "$" symbol).

The $30-$60 trillion figure was arrived at _using commercially available pricing for tempered glass_. If Solar Roadways believes they can beat this cost estimate, the first thing they need to show is _a cost of glass well below $300 per m^2 as Thunderf00t cited in his debunking video._ That should be trivial. And yet they haven't.

"Asphalt roads are cheap and maintainable"

The question isn't "are present highways cheap or expensive?", but "does Solar Roadway's scam, I mean, scheme, actually beat those costs". I can point to all sorts of troubling things in the world, _but unless the alternative I propose is actually BETTER then all the hurt presently felt doesn 't improve my proposal one whit_.

"We can't afford to heat roads"

Again, Thunderf00t: scraping snow and ice off of roads, and allowing blacktop to absorb solar radiation _and converting it to heat with an efficiency of 100% to melt the remaining snow and ice_ is VASTLY less energy-intensive than applying heat of fusion to ice to convert it to water.

Again, SR's scam, erm, scheme, defends its proposal based on the undesireableness of the present situation, not on any actual merits of their proposal. For it has none.

On glass vs. asphalt: the question isn't the hardness of the materials, but on _the durability_ with the added proviso that _the material serve all its functions_.

Asphalt has the primary requirement of remaining asphalty.

Glass would have to exhibit _both_ the durability of asphalt _and_ sufficient transparency to permit solar radiation to be absorbed and LED signals to be emitted.

Speaking of LEDs: the rebuttal fails to mention the most significant of Thunderf00t's critcisms:

• That much roadside signalling can occur with zero electronics or power requirements through passive reflectors. As is done today.

• That static, horizontally-mounted signage is sufficient for virtually all other circumstances. Where periodic signage changes are necessary (e.g., road closures), flippable signage can be used.

• If _dynamic_ information is necessary, _that_ can be provided with occasional electronic signboards, raised _above_ the roadbed (for increased visibility) and with optimally targeted and shaded LED lighting (or variable reflective displays), which are fully legible in daylight. And at vastly lower cost than resurfacing every last inch of roadway in the nation.

And the rebuttal utterly fails to address the transmission line costs: $1 - $2 million dollars per mile, across the 23,000 miles of roadway, for another $23 - 46 _billion_ dollars of cost.

It's still bullshit.

P.S.: As to why debunking this matters. _Yes_ we've _absolutely_ got some hugely challenging constraints headed our way, and some of the earlier ones aren't far off (NB: US EIA and the IEA both predict US fracked gas and oil will peak by 2020). Addressing energy needs is at the heart of many of these. _Solar offers sufficient net total potential, the main constraints are cost and build-out._ And there are other options out there I'd like to see pursued (wind, hydro, geothermal, maybe even nuclear -- I'm not a huge fan but if it provides a bridge or even permanent solution, so be it). And more hare-brained stuff such as Seawater Fischer-Tropsch Fuel Synthesis (SFTFS), which is a longer shot but passes my initial sniff test (it's also got the coal industry interested for some reason: [http://redd.it/25iz78](http://redd.it/25iz78)).

Solar Roadways is at best a distraction, at worst a scam that will be used against stuff that actually _will_ work, or is _actually_ worth pursuing.

The problems are getting people's hopes up over nothing, investors losing money to a scam, wasted investment, and even greater confusion and disinformation among the public. As bad as the SR people are, I find the press who've been shilling this on their behalf are even worse (I plan to assemble a Hall of Shame some time Real Soon Now). And it's a credit to amateur debunkers who've run the numbers and applied actual engineering knowledge to this, on Reddit, YouTube, G+, and elsewhere, who've put the so-called professional press to shame.

<comment><USER19> > On glass vs. asphalt: the question isn't the hardness of the materials, but > on the durability with the added proviso that the material serve all its > functions.

They don't mention "flex". Hard things tend to be brittle. Having the only flex happening at the edges of the panels is suboptimal - that's where all the connectors are.

<comment><USER16> Quite.

There's also the matter of fatigue. Aluminum, for example, is far stronger by weight than steel, but it is subject to fatigue in which microscopic cracks accumulate. These can often compromise virtually _all_ the strength of a component before they're visible to casual observation (they can be detected via microscopy, x-ray, and sonic analysis).

I've had several aluminum components fail on me, suddenly, on bicycles. The experience is ... not particularly heartening.

Glass is similarly not known for being highly flexible or self-healing. Among the benefits of asphalt is that it has little internal structure and does reflow to an extent (more so under hot weather, often to the point of creating a hazard). Given the punishment taken by roads, this is a significant benefit.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Will they be disrupting the space launch industry by building concrete rockets next? _lol_</comment>


Zynga Stole Everything It's Suing Us For - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessinsider.com/vostu-zynga-stole-everything-its-suing-us-for-2011-7?op=1 <comment><USER2> The screenshot comparisons are quite damning.

Also, previously on Hacker News:

Zynga CEO: "Just copy what they do and do it until you get their numbers." <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1675483>

</comment><comment><USER3> I find it hard to believe that Zynga knew about -none- of those games. I could believe 1 or 2, but to have pre-existing examples of every game they are trying to sue over... I just can't believe that.

It sounds to me like Zynga forgot its roots.

<comment><USER4> What roots are you referring to? As pointed out by another in this article's discussion, Zynga has a well documented history of not caring about original production but rather looking around for successfull social games, copying them and throwing way more marketing dollars and gamification techniques at them so as to make the original irrelevant.

<comment><USER5> I've heard that internally, they call this practice "fast-following". I guess they had to invent some double-speak so the game devs didn't feel so bad in meetings!

They actively look for small games that are just starting to become successful, since those are easier to displace in the market.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Seems like these days, ownership of an idea is based on who has more money to pay lawyers.

<comment><USER7> Agree with that, and this is part of the whole discussion regarding intellectual property laws. The problem is that, unless technology finds a way to bypass them, we need even more lawyers to solve these problems.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Mayby Zynga is being offensive about this stuff. Being sued right now wouldn't be a good thing for Zynga.

If anyone out there was expecting to sue Zynga they just threw an elbow. Now you know, if you are thinking about fucking with Zynga, they aren't going to be quite.

</comment><comment><USER9> I'm surprised Natsume (Harvest Moon) isn't suing all of these companies.

<comment><USER10> Sim Farm (Maxis)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> If the whole idea is for zynga to win this and claim that their ripoff games are "original", this will set a terrible precedent for all indie developers

<comment><USER11> Reminds me of how the Tetris company likes to sue copycats left and right. But regardless, indies don't care.

<comment><USER12> The article is about copyright infringement, not trademark. The "Tetris" trademark is owned by Pajitnov, who _invented the game_.

      The Tetris Company, LLC (TTC) is based in Hawaii and
      is owned by Henk Rogers and Alexey Pajitnov. The
      company currently owns the trademark to the game
      Tetris, originally conceived by Pajitnov.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tetris_Company>

<comment><USER11> If you look at the history of legal actions TTC has put forth, wouldn't you say their behavior is akin to sleazy patent lawyers?

<comment><USER12> Yes, I cannot agree with the way TTC has pressured developers based on "copyright" claims.

I wonder if TTC has a patent on "methods to deliver tetrominos to clear lines."</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>